Embarrassing: Because Mrs May is fond reminding us that she is a Christian. Mr Cameron reminded us that we were a Christian country. The Queen apparently lives her entire life according to the teachings of Christ. Maybe a bit of bible study would be in order.

Embarrassing: Guys, this is the 21st century! You’re old men, not children. Stop playing at fancy dress parties and get a bloody job.

Embarrassing: Didn’t their very first manifesto make it a matter of priority to get rid of the House of Lords?

Embarrassing: Just how heartless and thoughtless and downright bloody wicked was it to harass this lad?

Embarrassing: Theresa May has just signed a £100 million deal to provide President Erdoğan’s government with fighter jets. President Erdoğan has an appalling record on human rights and is seeking ever more powers. It seems only a short time ago when Westminster was warning against Turkey being allowed anywhere near the EU. They are becoming as inconsistent as Trump.

Embarrassing: Because this moron once tweeted something to the effect that his parents hadn’t come to ‘this great country’ so that their way of life could be ruined by immigrants. Dufus or what? But amusingly, I see that part of the 2,000-mile wall that he’s going to build runs through territory “given” to native Americans. The Tohono O’odham Nation have a border with Mexico which they cross regularly to meet with friends and family who live in Mexico. They have stated quite clearly that they will not allow the wall to be built on their territory. A war with a native American tribe would be all sorts of embarrassing for Dumbo. But a wall with a 75 mile gap in it would be completely useless. A little research before he made his vow might have saved him.

I have printed a pile of postcards with the BBC misreporting Scotland thing and my beloved QR code to take users to their site. I recall sending you a bunch of the earlier flier with the news sites on. Can I ask, could you run the picture on your site and ask readers to email address details if they would like some to distribute in their local areas? I can get 50 in a large letter below 250 grams, and 106 in a large letter below 500 grams. There will be no charge for willing believers.

I feel the optimum thing to do is leave them on public transport, in bars and restaurants ( particularly at the washbasins in the restrooms – because they are liable to have extended lives away from the cleaning staff ). Pin them on public notice boards. Put them under windscreen wipers on dry days. And any time the BBC are doing anything target vehicles in the vicinity. Or anywhere they will be seen.

David Bell

dabsnjudes@btinternet.com

I couldn’t get the picture of the leaflet he sent me to load properly, but it says:

And, if you value your health service, vote for independence

Overview of the Bill

1 The European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill (“the Bill”) has 2 clauses. A summary of, and background to, the Bill is provided below.

2 The Bill would give the Prime Minister power to notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union.

Policy background

3 The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (section 1) provided for the question of whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union to be put to a referendum. That referendum took place on 23 June 2016. A majority of those who voted in the referendum voted in favour of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union.

4 On 2 October 2016 the Prime Minister announced that the Government would commence the formal process of leaving the European Union before the end of March 2017.

Legal background

5 The procedure for withdrawing from the European Union is set out in Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (‘TEU’). The first step in the procedure is for the Member State that has decided to withdraw to notify the European Council of its intention (Article 50(2)).

6 In R (on the application of Miller and Dos Santos) v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017] UKSC 5 the Supreme Court considered whether it would be inconsistent with the terms of the European Communities Act 1972 for the Prime Minister to give notice to the European Union, under Article 50(2) of the Treaty of the European Union, of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the EU Treaties, without a prior Act of Parliament. In an 8-3 judgment the Supreme Court concluded that a prior Act of Parliament is required. This Bill provides the Prime Minister with the necessary power to give notice of withdrawal under Article 50(2).

7 The Supreme Court also considered arguments relating to the devolution acts and whether consent of the devolved administrations is required before notice to withdraw can be served. The unanimous decision of the court was that EU and other foreign affairs matters are reserved to the UK Government and Parliament and that the devolved legislatures do not have a veto on the UK’s decision to withdraw from the EU.

Territorial extent and application

8 This Bill extends, and applies in relation to, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. NOTE FROM MUNGUIN: WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO GIBRALTAR?

9 The Bill does not contain any provision which gives rise to the need for a legislative consent motion in the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Fast-track legislation

10 The Government intends to ask Parliament to expedite the parliamentary progress of this Bill. In their report on Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards, the House of Lords Select Committee on the Constitution recommended that the Government should provide more information as to why a piece of legislation should be fast-tracked.

Why is fast-tracking necessary?

11 The judgment of 24 January 2017 required the Government to complete an additional (and unexpected) step before the formal process of leaving the European Union can commence. Completing this step through the normal Bill timetable would cause considerable delay to commencing the formal exit process, making it impossible to do so before the end of March 2017. This would further generate uncertainty as to the timetable for our exit from the European Union.

What efforts have been made to ensure the amount of time made available for parliamentary scrutiny has been maximised?

12 The Bill is being published on the same day it is introduced and arrangements are being made for amendments to be accepted in advance of second reading in the House of Commons.

Does the Bill include a sunset clause (as well as any appropriate renewal procedure)? If not, why do the Government judge that their inclusion is not appropriate?

13 Due to the nature and content of the Bill, it does not include a sunset clause.

Are mechanisms for effective post-legislative scrutiny and review in place? If not, why do the Government judge that their inclusion is not appropriate?

14 The impact of the Bill itself will be both clear and limited, therefore mechanisms for post legislative scrutiny are not necessary.

Has an assessment been made as to whether existing legislation is sufficient to deal with any or all of the issues in questions?

15 An assessment has been undertaken and existing legislation is not sufficient to give notice under Article 50(2) TEU.

Have the relevant Parliamentary committees been given the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation?

16 Given the need to introduce legislation as quickly as possible, it has not been possible to formally discuss with Parliamentary Committees.

Commentary on provisions of Bill

Clause 1: Power to notify withdrawal

17 Clause 1(1) provides power for the Prime Minister to notify the European Council of the United Kingdom’s intention to withdraw from the European Union.

18 The power that is provided by clause 1(1) applies to withdrawal from the EU. This includes the European Atomic Energy Community (‘Euratom’), as the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 sets out that the term “EU” includes (as the context permits or requires) Euratom (section 3(2)).

19 Clause 1(2) provides that the powers in clause 1(1) are conferred regardless of any restrictions which may arise from any other legislation, including the European Communities Act 1972.

Clause 2: Short title

20 Clause 2 confirms the intended short title of the Act.

Commencement

21 Commencement would be on Royal Assent.

Financial implications of the Bill

22 The Bill is not expected to have any financial implications.

Parliamentary approval for financial costs or for charges imposed

23 No money resolution is required.

Compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights

24 It is considered that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the Convention rights.

**********

From the same page in the Guardian, I noticed this piece. May was, at the time of writing, winging her way across the Atlantic to do some heavy duty grovelling to Trump. Polly Toynbee wrote:

On her flight, she should read [Trump’s] obnoxious book, The Art of the Deal, where the other guy is always shafted. Sure, he’ll promise a deal and she’ll come home pretending triumph. But in hammering out the terms, detail by detail, we shall eat humble pie made of genetically modified, hormone-injected meat. Our City of London, our public services, our NHS risk being devoured by predatory US companies, with any resistance adjudicated by a US trade court far more onerous than the shared European court of justice she derides.

Amazing how, when they no longer have to obey the whip and say what they are told to say, they seem to get so much brighter…and so much more honest.

Talking of stupid, I read on Twitter (maybe someone can confirm it) that Boris has said if Scotland gets independence he will rebuild Hadrian’s Wall. Now, I know Boris is a buffoon, but I’d have thought that, with his education, he might have known that Hadrian’s Wall is in England. Is he intending to cede part of his country to us?

Finally, this is not really connected at all, but Niko sent me this on the last thread and you may not have seen it. It’s hilarious.

From the minister

I hope that makes it clear.

As Humza says, the opposition, many of whom were against universal benefits, and wanted to do away with, for example, universal free prescriptions, are lying, haven’t bothered to find out the facts, or have and are too stupid to understand them. One of these!

No one is taking your card away. There will be a consultation about how to make it sustainable over a period. The scheme is likely to be extended in some ways to help people who need it.

The scheme, brought in by the Labour/Liberal government is admirable. It really is a generous project covering the whole of Scotland.

It encourages less-well-off older and disabled people to make journeys that would be beyond their means. It encourages them out of the house, in to the town, or to another town, to meet friends and do their own shopping. In short, it is good for their morale, health and wellbeing. On colder days it is a way of keeping warm and saving on the household heating bill. (Yes, I’ve known people who did that… HAD to do that!)

In the case of richer people, who can afford the bus fare, it encourages them to leave the car behind and use public transport, reducing congestion on the roads, pollution and overflowing parking facilities in town. Of course, that doesn’t work for everyone. You still get Lady Whatsit and her chauffeur driven Bentley taking up the road, but for most people it is an incentive to leave the car behind. That has to be a good thing.

It reduces wear and tear on the already damaged roads. And it almost undoubtedly reduces the number of accidents, a good thing on its own, but with the additional benefit of reducing pressure on the emergency services.

It ensures that buses run throughout the day, providing a better service for those who need them. Buses are no longer a real public service. They are for profit. If there is no money to be made on a route during the day, the bus company will reduce the service to the absolutely minimum required to retain the franchise for that route, making life more difficult for fare paying passengers outside of peak travel times, for getting to hospital appointments, jobcentre interviews, and shopping.

In a perfect world we would all have free, or at least reasonably priced clean, efficient and reliable public transport. We don’t live in a perfect world.

Let’s wait for the consultations before we get bent out of shape. If we have something to say, let’s contribute to these consultations and try to get the best deal for the public with limited money that can be made available.

It was always my opinion that Theresa May was foolish not to have accepted the ruling of the English High Court when they said that the UK parliament should have the final say on triggering Article 50.

Much better to accept it, put it before parliament and move on.

After all, it seemed to me unlikely that parliament would vote to disregard the result of a legally held, even if not binding, referendum. Tory MPs would, I thought, by and large support the government’s view and enough Labour MPs would most likely vote the way that their constituents voted (largely leave) to ensure that the Bill to give the government permission to remove us from the EU with all that entails, would pass.

For some odd reason, however, May decided not to accept the British judges’ British justice and instead take their case to the UK Supreme Court with an appeal, which they have now lost. (Never mind the cost though, we’ve got piles of cash!)

Those papers, like the Diana and the Heil, who considered the High Court judges to be “enemies of the people” for pointing out what the law stated, must by now have added the Supreme Court judges to that list. I suppose that we shall have to provide police protection for these judges too, lest the hatred that the Mail and Express, the Star and the Sun whipped up, erupt into some sort of violence. (Never mind the cost, we’ve got piles of cash, again!)

So, it was never about whether Article 50 would be triggered or not. It was about the law. About whether the power of the Crown could deny parliament its say in this case.

It is fairly important when embarking on a stupendously important piece of legislation, that it should be done legally. And surely it was better to find out now that Royal Prerogative was not a legal means of triggering this article than in say 9 months’ time when embarrassingly someone points out to David Davis that he didn’t have the power to proceed, has broken the law, and all his negotiations are invalid. Oeuf sur le visage, or what? Oops sorry, that’s foreign!

Indeed you would have thought that somewhere in the massive organisation that is the British government, there might have been someone who would quietly advise them of how the law stood on these matters. Clearly not, though. Such is the joy of having either an incompetent government that doesn’t understand the law of its own land or, more likely, an egotistical one that refuses to listen.

In any case, there is now to be a bill on Article 50, and they could have saved themselves a month (and a lot of our money) had they just known a bit more, or listened a bit more.

UK Supreme Court unanimous that this is not a devolved matter. Comprehensive defeat for the Scottish Government.

++++++++++

The Supreme Court also ruled that the opinions of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish parliaments/assemblies need not be considered. The matter is a UK one and not for devolved governments.

This was greeted with much glee by Professor Tomkins who tweeted joyfully that this was a blow for the Scottish government (something he obviously relishes), seemingly unaware that his own government and prime minister had received an equal, if not greater, blow at the hands of the Supreme Court.

In fact, unless the Supreme Court had ruled that any one of the devolved administrations could overturn the Westminster parliament’s decision, it was never going to make any difference. Our opinion may have had to be legally sought, but it was never going to change anything. And why should it? If England has 85% of the population; it has 85% of the clout. No matter how strongly we, Northern Ireland or Gibraltar feel, we are simply too small to call the tune.

(This is NOT a criticism of the judgment of the Supreme Court. They have interpreted the law as it exists. I’ve no argument with that.)

The Supreme Court has effectively ruled that we are not equal partners in the union and are not necessarily entitled to our opinion being regarded. It simply legitimises what we have always said. It’s an unequal union.